Jump to content

Ryjak

Member
  • Content Count

    3,000
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    30

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Ryjak reacted to Duetzefix in Duetzefix' weird little ships   
    Not that quick, it turns out. Anyway, on to the Turmoils, DFC Bathornis-PI99 and DFC Illuyanka-S001 (as you can see I looked up the Directorate's naming conventions):


    Pictures are very blue this time, don't ask me why, I didn't do anything different.
    Next up: Well, the Anarchist, of course. Last ship from RotO that's still missing.
  2. Like
    Ryjak got a reaction from Pathogen in Official Kurak Alliance Thread: Terquai Empire   
    Well, the best thing about Dreadnoughts in general is that they are hard to kill, and even after taking 6 points of damage can still do something... but should probably try to GTFO and draw as much fire in the process as possible.
    The Assault Carrier has one job; capture the biggest enemy target available.  If you do the math, it’s a gamble against an undamaged Battleship, but you can effectively win the game when you pull it off.
    I don’t know how much you like to gamble, and you may not know either.  If you can, playtest with each in three different games so you can get a feel for each, and you’ll probably capture a Battleship during one of those games.
  3. Like
    Ryjak reacted to Warcradle Stuart in Notes from Stuart, part 2   
    A couple of things:
    The Firestorm Universe is not going to be a Cold War. If you have an entire galaxy to wage war across, with vast distances of time and space separating the various combatants you can have multiple belligerents actively battling each other in full-scale war while still having the breathing room to explore, exploit and expand.
    Let's not get too hung up on notions of 'The Directorate are going to be turned into X or Y.'  We haven't announced any factions yet or even if there will be a Directorate at all (just kidding... maybe). Just lots of lovely speculation from the community. I'm certainly in the camp of being excited about the possibilities rather than worried about what might get thrown out with the bath water. 
     
     
  4. Like
    Ryjak reacted to Toxic_Rat in Notes from Stuart, part 2   
    And a bit later, Stuart posted this as well :
     
  5. Like
    Ryjak reacted to Bad Idea Comics in Firestorm SpecOps designs   
    Sorylian Salamanders.  They wanted the Sorylians to have light, fast special forces.  I imagine these guys stealth-teched out and sticking to walls.


  6. Like
    Ryjak reacted to Bad Idea Comics in Firestorm SpecOps designs   
    And some Directorate roughs.


  7. Like
    Ryjak reacted to Bad Idea Comics in Firestorm SpecOps designs   
    Bwahaha, found 'em!  Here's some Directorate SpecOps boys.


  8. Like
    Ryjak reacted to Bad Idea Comics in Firestorm SpecOps designs   
    Hi gang!  Here's a couple pieces I did just for fun many moons ago that got Neil to get in touch with me.  he had me doing design work for SpecOps, a 28mm skirmish game that never got produced.  I have a few more designs I'm trying to find, so stay tuned for more doodles.  I'd done these before I even saw troops for Planetfall.


  9. Like
    Ryjak reacted to Bad Idea Comics in Thoughts on ship Classes   
    This is completely false (I mean no offense, but your facts are not factual).  Destroyers get their name from being "torpedo boat destroyers"; torpedoes were the greatest threat to battleships at the time.  A flotilla of torpedo boats could roll right up to a BB and break its back with a volley of torps and the BB was so tall that it couldn't depress its guns to properly fire upon this diminutive class of craft so a ship that was faster than torpedo boats was required to fend them off and/or hunt them down.  Then submarines became a prevalent tool and destroyers were tasked to ward these off as well.  Destroyers were used to perform their own torpedo attacks against larger vessels, but this was never their primary tactical role and was often suicide for them, as it was best to attack ships from the side, where all of their guns were facing your position.  Destroyers most often performed these attacks at night (Jutland has several accounts of destroyer torpedo attacks occurring at night).
    One of my biggest problems with FSA was their total misuse of naval nomenclature and a deep misunderstanding of ships' tactical roles.  Combine this with the fact that all the fleets were fairly homogenized and you wind up with a relatively boring overall feel to the forces.  I'd love to see ships of the same size from all the races named something completely different with entirely different tactical roles.  Leave the human nomenclature to the human ships and give the aliens something different.  Make ships of the same size operate completely alien from human counterparts (in size).  I understand the need for some homogenization (cruisers are designed to be the basic ship of the line for all races and permit players to use them as a backbone of their fleet - they operate a bit differently from one another but they're all basically designed to stand in the line and shoot at the enemy).  BUT, I'd like some more variation and changes in nomenclature to indicate variance in alien thinking.  Really, why does everyone need a dreadnought?  (Another silly nomenclature issue, by the way - these were just battleships with a unified primary armament and high speed, the first of which was HMS Dreadnought, hence the term dreadnought battleship). Wouldn't it be more interesting to have more of another class of ship that does something crazy?  lay to the fluff instead of playing to the "class".
  10. Thanks
    Ryjak got a reaction from Polaris in Tac cards, and delaying use?   
    You are not required to play a TAC, so use is optional, thus: it says you may use tac cards during the tac phase 
     
    That RAW quote applies to TACs with ongoing effects, not to TACs with instant effects, such as Focused Repair.
  11. Like
    Ryjak reacted to Polaris in Firestorm Painting Group   
    Just finished 3 squads of nidus frigates, ahem I mean stinger escorts
    (But seriously the models are cool enough, I'm using them as nidus)
     



  12. Like
    Ryjak reacted to Hive in How do you use our destroyers?   
    2 things- on paper, they do look amazing until you see the squad cap of 2. They are tough for Relthozan mediums, with 6 hull points and a CR of 7, and while the squad cap means linked fire wil never pan out for them, for thier size and points they have ridiculous AD values on thier own in three directions, and cheaper than average access to biohazard and corrosive. Thier strength, in my eyes, is that those two traits make them capable of putting out a stupid amount of either crew loss or corrossion markers. Unlike most destroyers, they are not suited for finishing off units from a range. With a deployment trick (face it, even though multiple Ambush markers are a psychological weapon, Ambush is at its core a deployment trick) to get them into the fight earlier, you can start laying down markers super early, to screw up your enemy even before your "alpha strike" truly hits home. They are also brilliant medium wreckers.
    If I were running a non-bane list, one that was bringing BBs and maybe a Dread, I'd consider Venoms to be essential. Never link fire, always go for two hits instead of one. more corrossion is more fun! Also, AD 9 is very capable of putting a point of damage on a BB. Shields make it iffy, but you're not gonna get a crit by linking, so take the two shots, have a chance at two markers...
  13. Like
    Ryjak reacted to Stoobert in SRS rebalnace   
    You say that like it's a it's a bad thing.  :-)  I think the linked-PD deterioration on a Tier 2 and 3 squad was the bad thing because these squads are already vulnerable enough as it is.   PD deterioration + squadron size limits + battle log results in a "tactical rut": squads getting 'picked on' to the point of uselessness and finished off with torps just to score points.   Rinse and repeat, yawn.  This is an understandable tactic if you want to win but it makes for boring, predictable, inflexible and repetitive gameplay.
    @Bessemer Taskforce wasn't a fun game to play but it wasn't all bad and in fact had some good ideas some of which you mention.  FSA 2.0 SRS are too fiddly and weird ...Taskforce made some efforts to correct that - fair enough.   You have some good ideas in here.  There's no shame in incorporating ideas from other games if they work.  I'll be really curious to see what WC plan on doing with 'wings'.
  14. Like
    Ryjak reacted to alextroy in Critical hit table   
    The idea that your opponent should get that critical effect on you and you get to ignore it entirely because you repair it first is IMHO bad rules design. If it is too harsh for guaranteed impacted, the Critical Effect needs to be replaced with something that is less effective.
     
  15. Like
    Ryjak got a reaction from northerndragons in Spartan old rules!   
    “Really competative players” want to win as efficiently as possible. Unfortunately, in most game systems it’s much easier to win by consentrating on list-building and combos before th game than it is to win via positioning and outplaying your opponent during the game.
    I felt X-wing, when it first came out, was all about outplaying your opponent during the game, but since the game machanics didn’t actually reward you for out-maneuvering your opponent (you still needed to roll dice for damage, and RNG is fickle), FFG started adding things the made maneuvering less important, like turrets, and they also figured out a subtle way to make the game pay-to-win, which is great for the bottom line, but generally not great for gameplay.
    FSA 2.0 is more about positioning and maneuver than most games, and you are almost always rewarded for out-positioning your opponent.  For example, pretty much everyone that plays FSA 2.0 loses their first half-dozen games, because they’re learning the value of tactical positioning and strategic timing for the very first time.  Once you get the hang of your fleet and how it fires and maneuvers, you start drawing (per Battlelog) and that first actual win is very sweet.
  16. Like
    Ryjak got a reaction from Wolfgang Jannesen in Spartan old rules!   
    “Really competative players” want to win as efficiently as possible. Unfortunately, in most game systems it’s much easier to win by consentrating on list-building and combos before th game than it is to win via positioning and outplaying your opponent during the game.
    I felt X-wing, when it first came out, was all about outplaying your opponent during the game, but since the game machanics didn’t actually reward you for out-maneuvering your opponent (you still needed to roll dice for damage, and RNG is fickle), FFG started adding things the made maneuvering less important, like turrets, and they also figured out a subtle way to make the game pay-to-win, which is great for the bottom line, but generally not great for gameplay.
    FSA 2.0 is more about positioning and maneuver than most games, and you are almost always rewarded for out-positioning your opponent.  For example, pretty much everyone that plays FSA 2.0 loses their first half-dozen games, because they’re learning the value of tactical positioning and strategic timing for the very first time.  Once you get the hang of your fleet and how it fires and maneuvers, you start drawing (per Battlelog) and that first actual win is very sweet.
  17. Like
    Ryjak reacted to Jorgen_CAB in Critical hit table   
    In the space games I have developed over the years I have streamlined this more and more and concentrated more on the overall effect of damage than the specifics which is pretty irrelevant. In my latest version I made I basically had two values for ships... Status and Conditions. The condition could be Damaged, Devastated, Knocked Out or Destroyed. The Status could be Stressed, Suppressed, Chocked. Conditions was marked with a yellow, orange or red round small marker. Condition was marked with a white, grey or red cube marker.
    The status of the ship were temporary effects which the crew would be in based on damage and a variation of different reason from psychological to physical all in one. The status could obviously be fixed while a ships condition was permanent and could only be repaired in a repair yard. There really are no point in tracking things in much more detail since it is the overall effect you are after not exactly what is happening to a ship and exactly how many HP it has received... no ones know what the exact condition or status a ship is in during battle anyway, how it behave is what is important.
    The overall effect on battle will be quite impact-full but require minimal amount of record keeping.
    Crit effects might be fun for very large ships but in the end the effect are the same for all ships, or at least it should and it only take time and memory to deal with it for no good reason for the same result. You can use your imagination what a suppressed or chocked ship goes through in the same way if you like.
    In my opinion... in a game with the number of ships that you have in a typical FSA battle this type of complexity is not really needed. Just my opinion though...
  18. Like
    Ryjak reacted to Hive in Critical hit table   
    Honestly, in this format I almost feel like It'd be better to have players choose the effect. You got 5 more than CR? Choose from Fire Control and down. Any crit effect is going to be situational, and I could see a lot of opportunities for a higher number to effectively be a worse effect in a given situation.
     
    Here's what I would do. Bear in mind this assumes DR/CR stays about the same. You build a chart like this, right? And you make a Crit worth 2 damage automatically, don't tie that damage to any effect. Beat CR, do 2 hull. If you beat CR, you also can choose an option based on how much you beat it by. The chart would need to be relatively dense in terms of the status effects- assuming double crits as a possibility, a lot of mediums literally couldn't hit some of the higher numbers without getting destroyed anyways. To take your chart, for example, we should assume values +6 and over will kill mediums anyways. As such, I would move Repair Teams to +6, Explosive Decompression to +7 making the crew loss D3 instead of 2, swap the d3 crew on Reactor Overload to D3 damage and remove the corrosive from it, leaving Corroded to be a weapon effect. Why? Because with Fire you already have a crew loss mechanic under the +6 margin, three crew loss mechanics seems redundant, repair teams might not even matter for a ship with 4 hull, and at the +8 point extra damage starts to seem appropriate. My version of the chart would look like this, and assumes any non-crew non-damage effect to be repairable, just so that there aren't extraneous bits of info in the table. I also trimmed the reference to repairing AP, since that seemed like it had something to do with a repair mechanic not mentioned here.

     
    = CR :  Fire; This model losses 1 crew point and gains a hazard marker.
    +1 CR: Security in Disarray; This models AP is reduced to zero and may only repair 2 AP per turn. 
    +2CR: Defenses Offline; This model losses one active defense(Shield, cloak, PD) of the attacking players choice.
    +3CR: Main Drive Failure
    +4 CR: Fire Control offline
    +5 CR:   Fold Drive Failure
    +6 CR:  Repair teams in Disarray; This model may not make any repair rolls for one turn.
    +7 CR:  Explosive decompression; This model losses 1d3 crew points and gains a hazard marker. 
    +8 CR: Reactor Damage; This model losses 1D3 additional hull points. If attack destroys this model then it suffers a reactor overload.  
     
    Okay. SO what about Targeted Strikes, Cyberwarfare, and Boarding? Easy peasy. A Targeted Strike or Cyber attack looks at how much you beat DR by instead. A boarding attack uses Crew instead. Same rules, damage is determined separately so the TS will only do a point of damage if it doesn't crit and the Cyber attack will only do the effect.
  19. Like
    Ryjak got a reaction from Xireon in May 4th Q&A discussion   
    Does that mean you enjoy moving two dice and various status markers along with each model, and have never seen these markers get cross-contaminated or your damage dice get bump-rolled? Dice don’t work fine, particularly for high model-count games (Grand Fleet), but they are better than using paper HP/CP markers.
    And why are you assuming a new base design would make measuring to/from a flight peg difficult, or that you would even need to make measurements with a flight peg?
  20. Like
    Ryjak got a reaction from Wolfgang Jannesen in Ship Stat Changes   
    I’m sure WarCradle is aware of the 2.0 balance issues, and has some mechanisms in place to achieve better balance throughout the game.  Any serious effort at balance involves a lot of spreadsheets with lots of values, something which is lacking from tabletop games but very common in computer games.
    Alex Mann had a spreadsheet like this, and it generally confirmed what avid gamers like Stoobert learned through experience.  Unfortunately, any stat change had to be approved by the company, which basically never happened.  At least a lot of companies have figured out it’s ok to make minor adjustments every quarter... I don’t know what WWX looks like for updates,  but it’ll likely be the same pattern here.
  21. Like
    Ryjak got a reaction from Stoobert in Ship Stat Changes   
    I also would prefer to field a Battlecruiser with Frigates instead of two Battlecruisers.
    A better option, if the Battlelog system is kept, is to change it so you are not penalized for taking Squadrons below maximum size.  A small Squadron is already facing a host of other issues.
  22. Like
    Ryjak got a reaction from Kaptyn Krys in Future FA rules   
    The number of models on the table isn’t the way to look at things; it’s the number of distinct Units.  A lot of games have multiple models functioning as a Unit; others have each model represent a Unit.
    FSA struck this wierd middle ground where each Model was treated mechanically like a distinct Unit except in a few circumstances.  This is one of the main factors for why games take so much time to execute.  If instead multi-model Units were treated mechanically like a single Unit, then you could have a Grand Fleet’s worth of Models on the table and have a reasonable timeframe per game.
    But if you do that, you need to really ask why some Units are represented by 1 Model, and others with 30 Models, beyond the aesthetics.  What’s the gameplay advantage to multi-model Units?
    As for Chess, the decisions are so hard because each turn gives ~10,000 options to sort through for the ‘best’ one.  Most games of FSA are essentially a decision tree of:
    1. Which Unit is best to activate?
    2. Where exactly should I place the Models in this Unit?
    3. Should I Combine Fire, or use individual shots?
    #2 is the hardest, because each Model has ~30 different ways it can Move, and you can’t really know where the Model can actually go until you actually MOVE it.  Probably the best way to streamline gameplay is to use a mechanic where either you know (or can easily find out) where the Model can move, or take the X-Wing route where you guess, but are mechanically bound to this decision.
  23. Like
    Ryjak got a reaction from Toxic_Rat in Exploding d13's   
    Using different dice really comes into its own when it’s combined with opposed dice rolls.  Rolling a d8 to beat a d6 is a really big deal, and rolling a d4 vs a d6 really sucks.
    Also, if your barrier to entry for a miniatures war game is buying customs dice or templates or whatever gaming aid, I think you’ve forgotten how expensive those models are to obtain, especially ones worth painting.
  24. Like
    Ryjak reacted to Wolfgang Jannesen in Firestorm Painting Group   
    Late into april but I have my RSN fleet complete (minus one frigate squad but its on the way)
    Here's what a month and a half of binged documentaries and coffee has produced 

    EDIT: Wow these are really blurry. Sorry folks I'll retake and reupload them when I can
  25. Like
    Ryjak reacted to Charistoph in Future FA rules   
    Being tournament suitable doesn't always translate to being specifically designed for tournaments.  It was designed to be played during a lunch hour.  Sure, that's within a tournament's time table, but that doesn't make something people WANT to play in a tournament.
    Neither was Task Force, 40K, or Age of Sigmar.  Heck GW openly brags that they are not a game designer, yet people still play gobs of tournaments around the world of both their major systems.
    Anyone up for a Solitaire tournament?  No?  Tic-Tac-Toe?  No?  Me neither.  Time of game play is not the only qualifier for a tournament game.
    Tournaments for table top games come out of a community desire to play against a group of people over a weekend of a game they are already playing, not because the game is the new tournament game.  Point values are determined based on how many games the tournament organizers plan to have played within the allowed time frame.
    If you want a game to die a slow meandering death only kept alive by the occasional grognards who are fighting a rear action against entropy, sure you can go that route.  I still see people playing 9th Age as if GW completely denied ever creating Age of Sigmar.  I'm a huge fan of Battletech, the original, not that Clix ****.
    Yes, the internet only shows you a distilled picture of the market, that is not in argument.  The point was that Dropfleet Commander, as a competitor and a new boy on the street, will show you how much people are willing to buy and bring to the table for a game that is "fresh" to a market.  What is the normal amount of ships for that engagement is what people are normally willing to play on either a game night or a tournament, because of the game's mechanics.  X-Wing's a poor selling mechanic to follow as it is a poke-card game disguised as a miniature game, and the miniatures are used to sell the card packs (true story).
    Of course, there are 2 things which determine a match's speed, the ease of applying the mechanics and the familiarity with those mechanics.  Those mechanics in Firestorm which increase turn time are those that need to be addressed to help bring new players in the game who are used to the ease of X-Wing.
    As an example, 1500 points used to be the target point for 40K, because 2 average armies of that value could be played within 2-3 hours.  As editions came and went, it went up as the mechanics were made simpler, point values of units went down, and special rules started getting redonkulously powerful so that I see 2000 points as the average tournament point list these days.  Each edition shed veteran players, either due to fatigue (sometimes over the rules which were open to argumentative interpretation, I'm looking at you Independent Character!) or because of the, "This Edition Broke My Army" complaint.  However, as the rules got easier to get in to, it was easier to get people invested in the game, which is actually why 40K is seeing a resurgence.  40K is an important reference point as rumors are flying around in which Battlefleet Gothic will be making a comeback, and that is a direct and powerful competitor to Firestorm Armada, even more then DropFleet Commander is.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.